The Church of England's General Synod is now widely regarded as having voted
in favour of all the specific recommendations of the Windsor Report, although
they have in fact done something quite different: they voted in favour of giving
Rowan Williams their unstinting support in whatever course of action he is
able to persuade the primates to agree to. This may or may not turn out to
be exactly the same as the WR recommendations. The specific WR recommendations
hardly figured at all in the course of the debate.

And indeed the
specific short-term Windsor Report (WR) recommendations hardly figure
at all in the primates' recommendations (PM), although many general principles
of the WR are endorsed, particularly those in Parts A and B,
and
WR
thinking
lies behind much of
their communiqué. However, a great deal of compromise by all
sides
is evident. In this article I make no attempt to treat the communiqué comprehensively,
and limit myself to the specific
short-term recommendations,
although the importance of the primates' endorsement of WR principles should
not be underestimated.

In what follows
I use the
following
typographical
conventions: The WR recommendations are in italics prefaced by paragraph
numbers in parentheses.The PM recommendations are in bold and prefaced
by paragraph numbers. The numbered footnotes to the communiqué are
incorporated in the text but placed in bold italics.

First here
are the introductory paragraphs from the primates concerning their specific
recommendations:

6. ... There
are a number of things which are quite clear. Many primates have been
deeply alarmed
that the standard of Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality
expressed in the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which should command respect
as the
position overwhelmingly adopted by the bishops of the Anglican Communion,
has been seriously undermined by the recent developments in North America.
At the same time, it is acknowledged that these developments within
the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada have proceeded
entirely in accordance with their constitutional processes and requirements
(vi).

(vi)
In the statement of October 2003, we wrote “The Presiding Bishop
of the Episcopal Church (USA) has explained to us the constitutional
framework within which the election and confirmation of a new bishop
in the Episcopal Church (USA) takes place. As Primates, it is not
for us to pass judgement on the constitutional processes of another
province.
We recognise the sensitive balance between provincial autonomy
and the expression of critical opinion by others on the internal
actions
of a province.”

We also wish
to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral
appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue
unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of
homosexual people. The victimisation or diminishment of human beings
whose affections
happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to
us. We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved
and valued
by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and
friendship. (vii) See the Windsor Report, paragraph
146.

It is not often
that Anglican bishops use the word anathema. Historians please note this.

11.
We accept the principle articulated in Section D of the Windsor Report
concerning the universal nature of the ministry of a bishop within
Anglican polity (xi). Although formidable practical problems would attend
any formal
process of wider consultation in the election and confirmation of bishops,
we request that Provinces should themselves find an appropriate place
for the proper consideration of the principle of inter-dependence in
any process
of election or confirmation. (xi)
The Windsor Report, paragraphs 124 – 132.

To
clarify this recommendation briefly, WR para 131 said in part:

In
our view, all those involved in the processes of episcopal appointment,
at whichever level, should in future in the light of all that
has happened pay proper regard to the acceptability of the candidate to other
provinces in our Communion; the issue should be addressed by those locally
concerned at the earliest stages, by those provincially involved in the confirmation
of any election, and not least by those who, acting on those decisions, consecrate
the individual into the order of bishop…

The following
paragraph has to be considered as a severe rebuke to North Americans, which
sets the tone
for
much that follows.

12.
We as a body continue to address the situations which have arisen in North
America with the utmost seriousness. Whilst there remains a very real question
about whether the North American churches are willing to accept the same
teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere
in the Communion, the underlying reality of our communion in God the Holy
Trinity is obscured, and the effectiveness of our common mission severely
hindered.

The
communiqué then proceeds to deal with individual specifics. I previously
listed elsewhere the
specific WR recommendations under seven numbered headings. I re-use this
numbering below and for each item copy in the relevant paragraphs
of
the primates'
meeting
communiqué. This does involve taking them out of numeric order in
some cases.

1. To ECUSA as
a corporate body, requesting an expression of regret

(WR 134) …the
Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper
constraints
of the bonds of affection were breached in the events
surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New
Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression
of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain
within the Communion.

The Primates,
rather surprisingly, make no direct reference to this recommendation. However,
we also need to note
the latter part of paragraph 14:

…for the period
leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period we request
that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional bodies
to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor Report as
they consider their place within the Anglican Communion. (cf. paragraph
8)

This appears to
refer to several WR recommendations, including this one. It is
rather odd though that now there appears to be less urgency to the
request than was formerly the case, since no immediate "reinstatement" will
follow from compliance.

2. To bishops
who took part
in Gene Robinson’s episcopal consecration

(WR 134) …pending
such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene
Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they
should withdraw themselves from representative
functions in the Anglican Communion…

The names to
whom this applies are clear: here
is a list and here
is another
version of the list. I wrote previously that "…This
clearly refers to functions representing the AC externally,
i.e. to other bodies…" and I was taken to task for drawing this conclusion
from the language used by WR. Regardless of that, the meaning given it
by the PM is now clear.

The Primates
make no direct reference to this recommendation. It appears to be
superseded by their paragraphs 13 and 14:

13. We are
persuaded however that in order for the recommendations of the Windsor
Report to be properly addressed, time needs to be given to the Episcopal
Church (USA) and to the Anglican Church of Canada for consideration of
these recommendations according to their constitutional processes.

14. Within
the ambit of the issues discussed in the Windsor Report and in order
to recognise the integrity of all parties, we request that the Episcopal
Church (USA) and the Anglican Church of Canada voluntarily withdraw
their members from the Anglican Consultative Council for the period
leading up to the next Lambeth Conference. During that same period
we request that both churches respond through their relevant constitutional
bodies to the questions specifically addressed to them in the Windsor
Report as they consider their place within the Anglican Communion.
(cf. paragraph 8)

This extends
the WR recommendation, which affected ECUSA only, to include also the
Anglican Church of Canada, make the time period lengthy, and independent
of any
apology,
and transfers
the
onus
from the individuals previously listed to the provinces
as a
whole. And of course it applies to the individual provincial representatives
regardless of their personal culpability in the
matters
under dispute, while apparently now removing any sanctions from those
individuals previously listed, or extending sanctions to any other form
of "representative
functions in the Anglican Communion…". The recommendation
can only be implemented if the provinces concerned agree to do so, or
if the other members of the Anglican Consultative Council support it.

3. To ECUSA in
general concerning the election of bishops

(WR 134) …the
Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election
and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the
episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus
in the Anglican Communion emerges…

This was carefully
worded so that, as Tobias Haller has pointed
out, it is possible for a
mere majority of bishops with jurisdiction (i.e. active diocesans, not
suffragans or retired, or other bishops) to “effect a moratorium” in
practice by agreeing among themselves that they will not confirm any such
election. Thus it can be initiated by bishops without requiring any agreement
by diocesan standing committees, or General Convention. It is less clear
that it could persist in the long term, as when “subscribing” diocesans
retired,
the majority would be depleted, unless replenished by new bishops.

One point
must be clearly understood: the Primates’ Meeting in February will
determine whether or not the Windsor Report as it stands will be what
we must work with. It was quite impossible to decide anything about moratoria
until that happens. The Bishops committed to engage the process outlined
in the Windsor Report, insofar as our polity allows.

How very wise,
since it now appears that paragraphs 13 and 14 apply to this WR
recommendation as well as to the previous one, and in addition:

18. In
the meantime, we ask our fellow primates to use their best influence
to persuade their brothers and sisters to exercise a moratorium on
public Rites of Blessing for Same-sex unions and on the consecration
of any bishop living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage.

What is noticeable
in this paragraph is the change of terminology from "living in a
same-gender union"
to "living in a sexual relationship outside Christian
marriage". This makes it clear that the intended policy in respect
of bishops applies equally to heterosexuals and applies only to those
living in a relationship which is "sexual".
It could therefore be permissible - though only for "for purposes of
an organised religion" - under UK employment law, though not
necessarily in all European countries.

4. To
bishops who have authorized public Rites of Blessing
of same sex unions

(WR 144) …we
call for a moratorium on all such public Rites, and recommend that
bishops who have authorised such rites in the United
States and
Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the
bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation. Pending such
expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider
in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative
functions in the Anglican Communion…

As the status
of this WR recommendation appears to be exactly the same as 2 above,
my comments made there apply also here, although I am not clear whether
the second part of paragraph 14 is intended to apply to these bishops
individually in terms of issuing personal expressions of regret.

5. On care of dissenting groups

(WR
152) …we
commend the proposals for delegated episcopal pastoral oversight
set out by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA)
in 2004. We believe that these proposals are entirely reasonable, if
they are approached and implemented reasonably by everyone concerned.
We particularly commend the appeal structures set out in the House
of Bishops policy statement, and consider that these provide a very
significant degree of security. We see no reason why such delegated
pastoral and sacramental oversight should not be provided by retired
bishops from within the province in question, and recommend that a
province making provision in this manner should maintain a list of
bishops who would be suitable and acceptable to undertake such a ministry.
In principle, we see no difficulty in bishops from other provinces
of the Communion becoming involved with the life of particular parishes
under the terms of these arrangements in appropriate cases.

(WR
155) …We
further call upon those diocesan bishops of the Episcopal Church
(USA) who have refused to countenance the proposals
set out
by their House of Bishops to reconsider their own stance on this matter.
If they refuse to do so, in our view, they will be making a profoundly
dismissive statement about their adherence to the polity of their own
church…

I mentioned
last week that this was the area of WR recommendations that gave North
American conservatives most concern, and clearly the Primates agree:

15.
In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups
in
serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses
in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop
of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference
to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches
for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates’ Statement
of October 2003 (xii)

(xii) “ … we
call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision
for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their
own area
of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury
on behalf of the Primates.”

By
this action the primates seek to strengthen the WR recommendation.
The provision is not limited
to North America in its application, but its effectiveness does still
rely on the province concerned being co-operative. Much will depend
on the
stature
of those
invited to serve on the proposed panel, which has no precedent in Anglican
history, and will have no juridical authority - a retirement job for
Robin Eames?

6.To
those bishops who have intervened in provinces dioceses and
parishes other than their own

(WR
155) …We
call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty
to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than
their own:

to express regret for the consequences of their actions

to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and

to
effect a moratorium on any further interventions…

We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation
with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into
their own care.

This
request to express regret appears to have been deleted entirely by
the primates, as has the final sentence above. Concerning a moratorium
on future interventions:

15. [remainder] …Equally,
during this period we commit ourselves neither to encourage
nor to
initiate cross-boundary interventions.

This
wording seems to mean that all existing cross-boundary interventions
(of which there are many in North America) may remain in place, but
that the primates will not personally initiate any new ones.
It does not say that they will refuse to respond to future requests.
This is unlikely to be satisfactory to those American
bishops whose
dioceses
have
been
affected
by such
interventions.

7.
To ECUSA requesting a theological rationale

(WR 135)…We
particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA)
which explains,
from within the sources of authority
that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition
and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union
may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ. As we see
it, such a reasoned response, following up the work of the House
of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (USA), and taken with recent work
undertaken by the Church of England and other provinces of the Communion,
will have an important contribution to make to the ongoing discussion…

Here
again the primates have strengthened the recommendation:

16.
Notwithstanding the request of paragraph 14 of this communiqué,
we encourage the Anglican Consultative Council to organise
a hearing at its meeting in Nottingham, England, in June 2005
at
which representatives of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the
Anglican Church of Canada, invited for that specific purpose,
may have
an opportunity to set out the thinking behind the recent actions
of their Provinces, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the
Windsor Report.

So
this invitation is extended from the WR version to include also
the Canadians and same-sex blessings, and a
definite, short timescale and format is proposed. The recommendation
will have to be considered by those responsible for the Anglican
Consultative
Council's agenda.

And
last but not least, a recommendation addressed to the whole communion

The
first part of WR 135 reads:

Finally, we recommend that the Instruments of Unity, through the Joint
Standing Committee, find practical ways in which the 'listening' process
commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 may be taken forward, so
that greater common understanding might be obtained on the underlying
issue of same gender relationships.

And
the Primates, having already commented on related issues in
paragraph 6, again endorsed this:

17.
In reaffirming the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 as
the present position of the Anglican Communion, we pledge ourselves
afresh to that resolution in its entirety, and request the Anglican
Consultative Council in June 2005 to take positive steps to initiate
the listening and study process which has been the subject of
resolutions not only at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, but in
earlier Conferences as well.

The
importance of this recommendation should not be under-estimated,
but given past history, neither should the difficulty of involving
Global South provinces wholeheartedly in
such action.

The primates conclude this section:

19.
These strategies are intended to restore the full trust of our
bonds of affection across the Communion.

It
remains to be seen whether the Americans and Canadians, or
indeed the Anglican Consultative Council members generally, will
agree to any of the requests that are being made of them.And
if they do, whether ECUSA in particular will be willing to
continue its huge financial support of the Anglican Consultative
Council while excluded from its deliberations.